coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kharkiv.
5.  The applicant is the grandmother of a minor P.E. born in 1990. After the death of her daughter, her son-in-law, P.V., did not allow her to see P.E.
6.  On 10 January 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings against P.V., seeking permission to see her granddaughter regularly.
7.  On 3 December 1999 the Ordzhonikidzevsky District Court of Kharkiv (hereafter “the Ordzhonikidzevsky Court”) allowed the applicant's claim in part.
8.  On 18 January 2000 the Kharkiv Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
9.  On 7 July 2000 Ordzhonikidzevsky Court found against the applicant.
10.  On 5 September 2000 the Kharkiv Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
11.  On 20 June 2001 the Frunzensky District Court of Kharkiv allowed the applicant's claim in part.
12.  On 9 January 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and terminated the proceedings and left the applicant's claim without consideration as she had not used the possibility of extrajudicial settlement of the dispute before the Tutelage Board. The applicant was informed that she could re-lodge her claim after exhausting this possibility.
13.  On 14 August 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, thereby terminating the proceedings. The applicant received the copy of this ruling by regular mail on 7 October 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region.
5.  He sued the local Social Security Committee for unpaid allowances.
6.  By judgment of 24 August 2000, the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 2,602.39 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment became final on 4 September 2000. The applicant received the monies on 2 December 2005.
7.  On 1 July 2003 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 19,315.50. On 2 September 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant received the monies on 9 June 2005.
8.  By judgment of 5 April 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,973.57. The judgment became final on 15 April 2004. It appears that it remains without enforcement.
9.  On the same day, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 16,765.50 and adjusted his monthly allowance to RUB 5,664.84. On 15 April 2004 the judgment became final. According to the Government, the applicant received the monies on 25 August 2005. However, they did not submit any evidence or documents in that respect. The applicant submitted that he had not received the monies.
4.  The applicant, a former judge of the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal, was born in 1938 and lives in the city of Kirovograd.
5.  On 5 February 2004 the applicant retired, following a respective decision of the Verkhovna Rada.
6.  In November 2002 the applicant lodged a claim with the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv against the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice and the State Treasury, seeking payment of salary arrears and life‑long judicial benefits (long-service bonus and welfare benefits).
7.  On 16 December 2002 the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv allowed the applicant's claim and ordered the Ministry of Finances and the State Treasury of Ukraine to pay the applicant UAH 8,459.36[1].
8.  On 9 July 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this judgment and it became final.
9.  On 11 August 2003 the Bailiffs' Office of the Pechersky District of Kyiv informed the applicant that he had to address the State Treasury of Ukraine directly.
10.  On 10 November 2003 the State Treasury informed the applicant that there were no funds available in the budget to enforce the judgment of 16 December 2002.
11.  On 5 November 2004 the applicant received the sum awarded to him by the judgment of 16 December 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Kyiv.
5.  On 10 September 1998 the Leningradsky District Court of Kyiv instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for defamation.
6.  On 4 February 2000 the same court found the applicant guilty.
7.  On 3 August 2000 the Kyiv Court quashed this decision and terminated criminal proceedings on exonerative grounds.
8.  In July 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Department of the State Treasury in the Svyatoshynsky District of Kyiv (hereafter “the Department”) seeking compensation for moral damage caused by the criminal proceedings.
9.  On 16 January 2002 the Solomyansky District Court of Kyiv (hereafter “the Solomyansky Court”) allowed the applicant's claim and awarded her UAH 3,360 (EUR 600) in compensation.
10.  On 28 March 2002 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this judgment and it became final. On 21 May 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal.
11.  The writ of execution was issued on 26 June 2002, and the applicant submitted it to the Svyatoshynsky Bailiff's Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) on 23 July 2002.
12.  On 25 July 2002 the Bailiffs suspended the opening of enforcement proceedings as the writ did not contain the debtor's bank requisites. The decision also indicated that the judgment of 16 January 2002 could not be enforced as it did not comply with the Law on the State Budget.
13.  On 4 October 2002 the Solomyansky Court submitted to the Bailiffs a rectified writ.
14.  On 27 January 2003 the Bailiffs attached the Department's bank account.
15.  On 1 April 2003 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings due to the respondent's lack of funds. The applicant was not informed about this decision in due time.
16.  On 20 August 2003 the Svyatoshynsky District Court of Kyiv (hereafter “the Svyatoshynsky Court”) allowed the applicant's complaint against the Bailiffs' inactivity and found that the termination of the enforcement proceedings was unlawful.
17.  On 26 September 2003 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.
18.  On 10 December 2003 the Svyatoshynsky Court ordered to change the debtor in the case to the Central Office of the State Treasury.
19.  On 18 December 2003 the Pechersky Bailiff's Service initiated the enforcement proceedings.
20.  On 21 January 2004 the applicant was paid the judgment debt and the enforcement proceedings were terminated.
5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Štip.
6.  On 11 November 1996 the applicant, a farmer who reared cows, concluded an insurance agreement (полиса за осигурување) (“the agreement”) with an insurance company (“the defendant”) against a risk of the cows' death under which the latter would be liable to pay the damage, irrespective of the time of the death, if it was caused by reasons other than illness. On 23 November 1996 one of the applicant's cows died. Since the defendant refused to pay for the loss, on 30 January 1997 the applicant brought a claim against the defendant before the Štip Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”).
7. On 1 March 1997 the trial judge's wife was employed with the defendant as an assistant to the manager of its branch office.
8. On 30 January 1998 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant's claim.
9. The applicant appealed, arguing, amongst other things, that the first-instance court had arbitrarily given weight to evidence in favour of the defendant and that it had refused to examine witnesses as to the cause of death.
10. On 17 June 1998 the Štip Court of Appeal quashed the court of first instance's decision, instructing it to hear evidence from the vet who had examined the cow in order to determine the cause of the death.
11. On 28 March 2000 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant's claim, reiterating its earlier findings.
12. On 20 June 2000 the applicant appealed, arguing that he had never received a copy of the general terms of the contract, and that the cause of death had not been properly established. He also contended that that judge was biased since his wife had started working with the defendant just after the proceedings had started. He asked for the trial judge to be removed if the Court of Appeal were to quash the lower court's decision and remit the case
13. On 27 November 2000 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal, finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and the reasons given by the lower court. It did not make any comments on the applicant's allegations that the trial judge was biased.
14. The decision was served on the applicant on 24 April 2001.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Łowicz.
5.  The applicant was charged with armed robbery and, on an unspecified date, remanded in custody.
6.  On 10 November 2005 the Rawa Mazowiecka District Court sentenced the applicant to eight years and six months’ imprisonment.
7.  The applicant lodged an appeal.
8.  On 5 May 2006 the Łódź Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment and dismissed the appeal as manifestly ill-founded.
9.  The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal.
10.  On 30 September 2005 the Court received a letter from the applicant. The envelope bore the stamp “Censored on 19 September 2005” (Ocenzurowano dnia 19.09.2005), an illegible signature and the stamp of the Rawa Mazowiecka District Court (Sąd Rejonowy Rawa Mazowiecka). The envelope was sealed with adhesive tape. The letter of 11 September 2005 which was in the envelope likewise bore the stamp: “Censored on 19 September 2005” and an illegible signature.
4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Bursa. At the time of the events he was employed by S.İ and M.U.
5.  In 1997 the applicant was injured in an occupational accident and lost the third and fourth fingers of his left hand.
6.  On 22 December 1997 the applicant filed an action for compensation before the Bursa Civil Court of First Instance against S.İ., M.U and two other individuals who were allegedly responsible for the accident.
7.  On 16 June 2000, an expert report assessing the extent of the damage suffered by the applicant was submitted to the court.
8.  On 12 September 2000 the applicant lodged another case with the same court, claiming further damages. These two procedures were later joined.
9.  On 16 January 2002 the Bursa Civil Court of First Instance decided that it did not have jurisdiction to examine the applicant's case.
10.  On 20 February 2002 the defendants appealed against this decision.
11.  On 23 May 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision.
12.  On 31 July 2002 the case was resumed before the Bursa Labour Court.
13.  The first hearing was held on 21 November 2002. The court requested a report regarding the applicant's disability.
14.  On 30 June and 20 October 2003, the court postponed the scheduled hearings as the report requested on 21 November 2002 had not yet been submitted.
15.  On 11 March 2004 the report was submitted to the court. At the same hearing the court requested all the medical reports regarding the applicant. Furthermore, it requested that the applicant be re-examined by the Social Security Hospital.
16.  The court held eight hearings after 11 March 2004, the last of which was on 19 October 2006.
17.  According to the information in the case file, as submitted by the parties, the proceedings are apparently still pending before the Bursa Labour Court.
6.  The applicants, Mrs Elena Bulava and Mr Nicolai Bulava, a married couple, were born in 1957 and 1954, respectively, and live in Soroca.
7.  They were employees of a State-owned water-supply company (“the company”). Between 2000 and 2004 the company was at a standstill on several occasions and the applicants were not paid their salaries. They brought several actions against the company for the payment of their salaries.
8.  By final judgments of 26 March and 29 September 2003 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay Mrs Bulava 1,820 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 118.86 euros (EUR) at the time).
9.  By a final judgment of 22 March 2004 the Soroca District Court found that the company's failure to comply with the judgments of 26 March and 29 September 2003 in favour of the applicant violated her rights and ordered the company to pay the applicant MDL 8,981 (approximately EUR 576.75 at the time), which represented a penalty of 5% of MDL 1,820 for each day of default and MDL 1,820 for non-pecuniary damage. A bailiff received the enforcement warrant on 18 May 2004.
10.  By a final judgment of 29 March 2004 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay her MDL 2,452 (approximately EUR 161.5 at the time). A bailiff received the enforcement warrant on 20 April 2004.
11.  By a final judgment of 15 July 2004 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay the applicant MDL 5,460 (approximately EUR 369.2 at the time). A bailiff received the warrant of execution on 10 August 2004.
12.  By a final judgment of 13 September 2004 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay the applicant MDL 13,286 (approximately EUR 897.38 at the time). A bailiff received the warrant of execution on 13 October 2004.
13.  By a final judgment of 10 July 2003 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay Mr Bulava MDL 10,938.50 (approximately EUR 682.25 at the time). A bailiff received the warrant of execution on 3 February 2004.
14.  By a final judgment of 26 April 2004 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay him MDL 4,360 (approximately EUR 306.83 at the time). A bailiff received the warrant of execution on 11 May 2004.
15.  By a final judgment of 13 September 2004 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay the applicant MDL 13,375 (approximately EUR 903.39 at the time). A bailiff received the warrant of execution on 5 October 2004.
16.  By a letter of 27 December 2004 a bailiff informed the applicants, inter alia, that the assets of the company which had been seized by the bailiff remained unsold after auction. The applicants were also informed by the bailiff that the judgments would be enforced as soon as the company had assets.
17.  On 12 May 2005 the applicants informed the Court that all the judgments in their favour had been enforced on 29 April 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Gdańsk, Poland.
5. On 16 July 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. On 17 July 2004 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 16 October 2004. It found that there were reasonable grounds – in particular, evidence from witnesses – for suspecting him of the offence charged. The court further noted that the applicant was liable to a statutory maximum sentence of at least 12 years’ imprisonment. It also found that there was a risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence.
6. On 11 October 2004 the Gdańsk District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 16 January 2005. It considered that the reasons for keeping him in detention were still valid and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation justified holding him in custody. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. It also found that there was a risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence, given the nature of the charges against him and the fact that he had acted with other co-accused.
7. The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged by the District Court on unspecified dates. The courts’ decisions were based on Article 258 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which lists grounds for pre-trial detention, such as, the risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding or a justified fear that an accused will attempt to induce witnesses or co-defendants to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by any other unlawful means.
8. On 27 October 2005 the Gdańsk District Court convicted the applicant of two counts of robbery and sentenced him to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
9. On 26 September 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the impugned judgment.
10. The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal.
11. The applicant’s letter to the Court dated 24 November 2004 bears a stamp marked “censored” (cenzurowano), “the prosecutor” (prokurator) followed by an illegible signature. It appears that the envelope in which that letter was sent had been cut open and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape. According to the postmark the letter was posted on 8 December 2004.
12.The application form submitted by the applicant and dated 13 January 2005 bears a stamp marked “censored” (cenzurowano), “the judge” (sędzia) followed by an illegible signature. The envelope bears a stamp confirming that the applicant’s letter was received for dispatch by the prison administration on 18 January 2005. However, according to the postmark the letter was not posted until 31 January 2005. It also appears that the envelope was cut open and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape.
5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  The applicant is the owner of a daily newspaper, Günlük Evrensel, published in Istanbul.
7.  Günlük Evrensel released its first issue on 23 July 2001. On the same day, the state of emergency regional governor in south-east Turkey banned the newspaper's entry and distribution in the provinces under his jurisdiction, namely, Diyarbakır, Tunceli, Hakkari and Şırnak. The governor considered that the newspaper was pursuing the same editorial line as another newspaper called Yeni Evrensel, the entry and distribution of which had also been banned on 4 January 1999.
8.  The governor's decision to ban Günlük Evrensel, which contained no reasons, was served on the newspaper's Diyarbakır representative on 23 July 2001. The representative acknowledged its receipt on the same day and the ban took immediate effect.
9.  While banned in the state of emergency region, the newspaper was freely distributed elsewhere in Turkey.
7.  On 6 June 1990 two girls, who were mentally challenged, were raped in the town of Pazardzhik on several occasions in the course of the day.
8.  A preliminary investigation was opened on the next day, 7 June 1990, against an unknown assailant. On 12 October 1990 the Pazardzhik District Prosecutor’s Office suspended the investigation as the victims could not assist in identifying the offenders or the places where the offences had taken place.
9.  The preliminary investigation was resumed on 12 November 1990 against the applicant and another two individuals (the “co-accused”).
10.  On 28 February 1994 the applicant was charged that, together with the co-accused, he had raped the two girls.
11.  On an unspecified date another person was also charged that, together with the applicant and the co-accused, he had raped the two girls.
12.  On 21 July 1994 an indictment for rape against the applicant and the co-accused was submitted to the Pazardzhik District Court, which was revised in 2003 following further investigation.
13.  The Pazardzhik District Court conducted two hearings on 24 March and 23 April 2004, both of which were adjourned due to the defective summoning of some of the parties and the victims.
14.  On an unspecified date the criminal proceedings were discontinued apparently because the time-limit for prosecution under the statute of limitations had expired.
5.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Komorowice.
6.  In 1986 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand on a charge of stealing 4 tons of coal. The subsequent criminal proceedings against him ended in 1991, when he was finally acquitted.
7.  On 22 January 1992 the applicant lodged with the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action for compensation for unlawful detention in 1986.
8.  On 22 August 1994 the court held the first hearing, which was however adjourned.
9.  At the second hearing held on 31 August 1995 the court dismissed the applicant's action.
10.  On 7 September 1995 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision. However, the case file was transferred to the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) only on 21 May 1999.
11.  On 14 July 1999 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
12.  August 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
13.  On 6 February 2002 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed both judgments and remitted the case to the Regional Court.
14.  The Wrocław Regional Court held the first hearing on 24 September 2002. Subsequently, on seven occasions, the composition of the court changed so the proceedings had to start from the beginning.
15.  On 16 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
16.  On 29 April 2005 the Wrocław Court of Appeal allowed the complaint and granted the applicant PLN 2,000 in compensation (approximately EUR 514). The court analysed the course of the impugned proceedings in the light of the criteria which the Court itself applies and concluded that the Regional Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay.
17.  On 14 October 2005 the Wrocław Regional Court gave judgment. The court allowed the applicant's action and granted him PLN 27,000 in compensation for his unlawful detention in 1986. The applicant appealed.
18.  On 19 April 2006 the Wrocław Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.
19.  The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal and the judgment became final.